Waking Up the Golden Dawn

Does Exposure to the Refugee Crisis Increase Support for Extreme-Right Parties?

Model Student Presentation

Example University

PART I: THE PRESENTATION

Dinas, E., Matakos, K., Xefteris, D., & Hangartner, D. (2019). Waking up the Golden Dawn: Does exposure to the refugee crisis increase support for extreme-right parties? Political Analysis, 27(2), 244–254.

Research Question

Does exposure to refugees increase support for extreme-right parties?

  • Economic threat?
  • Cultural threat?
  • Simple exposure enough?

Context: Greece’s Golden Dawn

  • Neo-fascist platform
  • Anti-immigrant agenda
  • Parliamentary party

Why This Matters

Substantive:

  • 2015: 850,000 refugees via Greece
  • Largest crisis since WWII
  • Political violence against refugees

Theoretical:

  • Tests contact theory
  • Challenges realistic group conflict
  • Isolates exposure vs. contact

Core Argument

The Authors’ Hypothesis

  • Claim: Refugee arrivals → Golden Dawn support
  • Not through economic competition (no work permits)
  • Not through sustained contact (48-hour transit)
  • Pure exposure effect

Key insight: Mere visible presence triggers backlash

Proposed Mechanism

graph LR
    A[Refugee Arrival] --> B[Visible Presence]
    B --> C[Perceived<br/>Cultural Threat]
    C --> D[Golden Dawn<br/>Voting]
    
    A -.->|NOT| E[Economic<br/>Competition]
    E -.->|NOT| D
    
    A -.->|NOT| F[Sustained<br/>Contact]
    F -.->|NOT| D
    
    style A fill:#F5F5F5
    style D fill:#F5F5F5
    style E fill:#F5F5F5,stroke-dasharray: 5 5
    style F fill:#F5F5F5,stroke-dasharray: 5 5

Data & Design

Natural Experiment

The setting:

  • Syrian refugees flee via Turkey
  • Cross Aegean to Greek islands
  • Transit to mainland in <48 hours

The variation:

  • Distance to Turkish coast determines arrivals
  • Lesvos (close): 200,000 refugees
  • Lemnos (farther): zero refugees

Research Design

  • Instrument: Distance from Turkish coast
  • Treatment: Refugee arrivals per capita
  • Outcome: Golden Dawn vote share
  • Timing: January 2015 (pre) vs. September 2015 (post)
  • Units: 95 municipalities, 248 townships

Methdology

Two complementary approaches:

  1. Difference-in-differences: Treated vs. control islands over time
  2. Instrumental variables: Distance instruments for arrivals

Main Findings

Effect Size

Treatment effect:

  • +2 percentage points in GD vote share
  • 44% increase over baseline (4.5%)
  • Statistically significant, robust

Dose-response:

  • 1 refugee per resident = +0.77 pp
  • Effect concentrated in exposed townships
  • Stronger with more refugees

Political Consequences

  • GD became third-largest party
  • Gained constitutional privileges
  • Votes shifted from center-right Nea Demokratia
  • Also mobilized new voters (turnout increased)

Critical Analysis

Limitation 1: Mechanism Inferred, Not Measured

The gap:

  • No direct measurement of attitudes
  • No survey data from islands
  • Authors infer cultural threat

Why this matters:

  • Can’t distinguish cultural threat from other factors
  • Could be local mobilization
  • Could be media framing

Limitation 2: Modest Effect Given Context

Contextual factors suggest larger effect:

  1. Massive shock: 400,000 refugees in 5 months
  2. High visibility: 2.8 refugees per resident
  3. Concurrent crisis: Financial collapse, austerity
  4. Electoral salience: Vote during peak arrivals

Yet only +2 pp—suggests limits to backlash

Limitation 3: Narrow Generalizability

  • One country (Greece)
  • Temporary transit, not settlement
  • Pre-existing far-right party
  • Government-managed dispersal

Open questions:

Does this apply to permanent migration? Countries without far-right parties? Economic migrants?

Conclusion

Key Takeaway

Mere exposure to refugees—without economic competition or sustained contact—can moderately increase support for extreme-right parties.

Discussion question:

If transient exposure triggers backlash, what does this mean for countries serving as transit routes in future crises?

Thank you

Questions?

PART II: WHY THIS WORKS

Content Knowledge

Demonstrates Selectivity

What the presentation does:

  • Focuses on 2 core contributions: exposure effect and the natural experiment
  • Omits regression tables, robustness checks, all control variables

Why: Strong presentations show judgment—what’s essential vs. technical minutiae

Translates Technical Language

  • “Natural experiment” → distance creates random-like variation
  • “Difference-in-differences” → compare changes over time
  • “Instrumental variables” → distance predicts treatment

Every technical term paired with plain English

Critical Analysis

Specificity Over Vagueness

Bad critique: “The paper has limitations”

Good critique: “No survey data means mechanism is speculative”

Each limitation slide:

  1. Names the specific gap
  2. Explains the consequence
  3. Remains fair to authors

Organization

Follows Evaluation Logic

  1. Question → What are they asking?
  2. Theory → What do they propose?
  3. Design → How do they test it?
  4. Findings → What did they find?
  5. Critique → What are the limits?
  6. Implications → What does it mean?

This is how you evaluate research, not just summarize it

Clear Signposting

Section dividers mark transitions:

  • Core Argument
  • Data & Design
  • Main Findings
  • Critical Analysis
  • Broader Implications

Audience always knows: “Where are we in the argument?”

Clarity

Bullets as Prompts, Not Scripts

Research Design:

  • “Instrument: Distance from Turkish coast”
  • “Treatment: Refugee arrivals per capita”

Not: “The instrumental variable that the authors use in their analysis is…”

Fragments anchor speech, don’t replace it

One Clear Purpose Per Slide

Test: “If I removed this slide, would audience lose something essential?”

  • Slide: Effect magnitude
  • Slide: Political meaning
  • Could be combined, but separating reduces cognitive load

Active, Direct Language

It has been hypothesized by the authors that…”

Hypothesis: Refugee arrivals → Golden Dawn support”

No hedging, no passive voice

Engagement

Visual Explanation

Mermaid diagram:

  • Proposed mechanism (solid arrows)
  • Rejected mechanisms (dotted)

Causal chains easier to grasp spatially than verbally

  • Added map from paper

Visual Design

Consistent Color Palette

Consistent colore palette

Cohesive, professional, topic-specific

Purposeful Layout Variation

  • Two-column slides
  • Single-column slides
  • Diagram slides

Variety prevents monotony

No Decoration

Every element serves a function

No stock photos, clip art, or filler

Test: “What does this visual do?” If no answer, cut it

Time Management

15-Minute Structure

  • Introduction: 2 min
  • Core Argument: 2.5 min
  • Data & Design: 3 min
  • Findings: 2.5 min
  • Critical Analysis: 3 min
  • Implications: 2 min

~15 minutes total with natural buffer

Summary Principles

Core Takeaways

  1. Content: Focus on unique contribution
  2. Critique: Specific gaps + consequences
  3. Organization: Question → evidence → evaluation → significance
  4. Clarity: Bullets as prompts, jargon translated
  5. Engagement: Relevant question to provocative question
  6. Visuals: Functional, not decorative
  7. Time: ~1-1.5 min/slide, front-load complexity